If you do not go to a "national" school... Forum

[094320]

..

[romothesavior]

I wouldn't pay sticker for UCLA. Or Cornell actually, but Cornell is far and away the better choice if you just want to get a job that will enable you to repay those loans in a timely fashion.

This is how I feel as well. I wouldn't pay sticker at either. But I value having a job that will allow me to service my debts more than having a job in a geographic location, so I'd say Cornell. But if there were schollies at both, I'd say UCLA.

[rad lulz]

I wouldn't pay sticker for UCLA. Or Cornell actually, but Cornell is far and away the better choice if you just want to get a job that will enable you to repay those loans in a timely fashion.

I mean, Cornell does do a better biglaw placement, but I imagine UCLA would do better in, like, LA.

Probably, but at sticker, Cornell is the better choice. Marginally less stupid.

Unless you are dead set on LA, in which case I'd recommend getting over that.

[horrorbusiness]

I wouldn't pay sticker for UCLA. Or Cornell actually, but Cornell is far and away the better choice if you just want to get a job that will enable you to repay those loans in a timely fashion.

I mean, Cornell does do a better biglaw placement, but I imagine UCLA would do better in, like, LA.

Agreed and the quick responses are appreciated. I'm aware that a big factor in my indecision is that I haven't decided whether I like the idea of working and living in NYC yet. Based on the NLJ numbers posted a few days ago, UCLA was putting about 20% (to Cornell's ~40%) into NLJ250, and that certainly makes me lean toward Cornell. (I'm aware those %'s are nothing to draw major conclusions about their placement for 2015 grads from, but yeah).

[thexfactor]

the question ends up being... would you trade 3 years of your life in a cold snowy version of hell for a 2x chance at biglaw?

[20160810]

the question ends up being... would you trade 3 years of your life in a cold snowy version of hell for a 2x chance at biglaw?

NLJ250 is very NYC-centric, which gives Cornell a bigger edge than it really has. Lots of good CA firms aren't NLJ250 firms. Your odds of getting a firm job are better from Cornell, but not twice as good. I think this is a tossup. With ties to CA, I'd go to Cornell. If no ties, go to UCLA.

[MrHaephestus]

I'd like to take a moment and thank Romo for starting this post, and also thank all the TLSer's for their commentary.

As a 0L and an older guy, I've combed TLS (and other sources) over and over again in order to make the most informed decision I can about attending law school. For a time, I'd even seriously considered posting my own "Should I Stay or Go," or "Which School . . ." thread, but thankfully I can save the TLS community the trouble (yet still waste your time posting this?)

My initial LSAT score was a letdown. I fucked up on a section I usually killed in practice tests, and felt pretty strongly that I improve. Yet, I took my shitty LSAT score and poor GPA forward and almost into the abyss. I was accepted at (numbers in parenthesis are est. COA for 3 years including schollys):

Texas Tech ($110K)
South Texas ($144K);
St. Mary's ($115K);
OCU ($104K);
TX Wes ($141K)
Loyola NOLA ($169K).

As I looked over the numbers listed above and considered each schools' reputation, placement options, ties to the area etc. I said to myself, "For fuck's sake, man! What the hell are you thinking?"

I am committed to practicing law, and my primary interest is in government work or PI, but those areas don't typically pay alot, and I just can't stomach taking on 6 figures of non-dischargeable debt to get a $40K-%60K / year job (if I can get the job).

And so TLS'ers, I am no longer on the fence about my decision. I've withdrawn my applications, and I will be retaking the LSAT. The potential benefits of a higher LSAT score vastly outweigh going forward with any of my current choices. I am perfectly fine attending a TX or LA school, but if I am going to "go regional" I'd like it to be a regional school with a solid reputation and at a reasonable cost. Moreover, it should give me a fighting chance at landing my dream job.

So for those of you that have lamented about 0L's not taking advice, I hope this little blurb gives you some hope - some of us do actually listen. Thanks, again!

[094320]

..

[reformed calvinist]

I'd like to take a moment and thank Romo for starting this post, and also thank all the TLSer's for their commentary.

As a 0L and an older guy, I've combed TLS (and other sources) over and over again in order to make the most informed decision I can about attending law school. For a time, I'd even seriously considered posting my own "Should I Stay or Go," or "Which School . . ." thread, but thankfully I can save the TLS community the trouble (yet still waste your time posting this?)

My initial LSAT score was a letdown. I fucked up on a section I usually killed in practice tests, and felt pretty strongly that I improve. Yet, I took my shitty LSAT score and poor GPA forward and almost into the abyss. I was accepted at (numbers in parenthesis are est. COA for 3 years including schollys):

Texas Tech ($110K)
South Texas ($144K);
St. Mary's ($115K);
OCU ($104K);
TX Wes ($141K)
Loyola NOLA ($169K).

As I looked over the numbers listed above and considered each schools' reputation, placement options, ties to the area etc. I said to myself, "For fuck's sake, man! What the hell are you thinking?"

I am committed to practicing law, and my primary interest is in government work or PI, but those areas don't typically pay alot, and I just can't stomach taking on 6 figures of non-dischargeable debt to get a $40K-%60K / year job (if I can get the job).

And so TLS'ers, I am no longer on the fence about my decision. I've withdrawn my applications, and I will be retaking the LSAT. The potential benefits of a higher LSAT score vastly outweigh going forward with any of my current choices. I am perfectly fine attending a TX or LA school, but if I am going to "go regional" I'd like it to be a regional school with a solid reputation and at a reasonable cost. Moreover, it should give me a fighting chance at landing my dream job.

So for those of you that have lamented about 0L's not taking advice, I hope this little blurb gives you some hope - some of us do actually listen. Thanks, again!

Very wise. I wish you the very best of luck in your retake.

[sunynp]

I'd like to take a moment and thank Romo for starting this post, and also thank all the TLSer's for their commentary.

As a 0L and an older guy, I've combed TLS (and other sources) over and over again in order to make the most informed decision I can about attending law school. For a time, I'd even seriously considered posting my own "Should I Stay or Go," or "Which School . . ." thread, but thankfully I can save the TLS community the trouble (yet still waste your time posting this?)

My initial LSAT score was a letdown. I fucked up on a section I usually killed in practice tests, and felt pretty strongly that I improve. Yet, I took my shitty LSAT score and poor GPA forward and almost into the abyss. I was accepted at (numbers in parenthesis are est. COA for 3 years including schollys):

Texas Tech ($110K)
South Texas ($144K);
St. Mary's ($115K);
OCU ($104K);
TX Wes ($141K)
Loyola NOLA ($169K).

As I looked over the numbers listed above and considered each schools' reputation, placement options, ties to the area etc. I said to myself, "For fuck's sake, man! What the hell are you thinking?"

I am committed to practicing law, and my primary interest is in government work or PI, but those areas don't typically pay alot, and I just can't stomach taking on 6 figures of non-dischargeable debt to get a $40K-%60K / year job (if I can get the job).

And so TLS'ers, I am no longer on the fence about my decision. I've withdrawn my applications, and I will be retaking the LSAT. The potential benefits of a higher LSAT score vastly outweigh going forward with any of my current choices. I am perfectly fine attending a TX or LA school, but if I am going to "go regional" I'd like it to be a regional school with a solid reputation and at a reasonable cost. Moreover, it should give me a fighting chance at landing my dream job.

So for those of you that have lamented about 0L's not taking advice, I hope this little blurb gives you some hope - some of us do actually listen. Thanks, again!

Yay! Thanks for posting this (even though I haven't posted in this thread I appreciate your post.) Good luck on your retake.

[AreJay711]

the question ends up being... would you trade 3 years of your life in a cold snowy version of hell for a 2x chance at biglaw?

NLJ250 is very NYC-centric, which gives Cornell a bigger edge than it really has. Lots of good CA firms aren't NLJ250 firms. Your odds of getting a firm job are better from Cornell, but not twice as good. I think this is a tossup. With ties to CA, I'd go to Cornell. If no ties, go to UCLA.

Obviously California is a bigger legal market but I get some skepticism from people back in Maryland about going to Michigan and my desire to work in the state.

[romothesavior]

Mr. Haephestus, that really made my day. Thanks and best of luck with your retake. And do come back when it comes time to reapply!

[horrorbusiness]

I'd like to take a moment and thank Romo for starting this post, and also thank all the TLSer's for their commentary.

As a 0L and an older guy, I've combed TLS (and other sources) over and over again in order to make the most informed decision I can about attending law school. For a time, I'd even seriously considered posting my own "Should I Stay or Go," or "Which School . . ." thread, but thankfully I can save the TLS community the trouble (yet still waste your time posting this?)

My initial LSAT score was a letdown. I fucked up on a section I usually killed in practice tests, and felt pretty strongly that I improve. Yet, I took my shitty LSAT score and poor GPA forward and almost into the abyss. I was accepted at (numbers in parenthesis are est. COA for 3 years including schollys):

Texas Tech ($110K)
South Texas ($144K);
St. Mary's ($115K);
OCU ($104K);
TX Wes ($141K)
Loyola NOLA ($169K).

As I looked over the numbers listed above and considered each schools' reputation, placement options, ties to the area etc. I said to myself, "For fuck's sake, man! What the hell are you thinking?"

I am committed to practicing law, and my primary interest is in government work or PI, but those areas don't typically pay alot, and I just can't stomach taking on 6 figures of non-dischargeable debt to get a $40K-%60K / year job (if I can get the job).

And so TLS'ers, I am no longer on the fence about my decision. I've withdrawn my applications, and I will be retaking the LSAT. The potential benefits of a higher LSAT score vastly outweigh going forward with any of my current choices. I am perfectly fine attending a TX or LA school, but if I am going to "go regional" I'd like it to be a regional school with a solid reputation and at a reasonable cost. Moreover, it should give me a fighting chance at landing my dream job.

So for those of you that have lamented about 0L's not taking advice, I hope this little blurb gives you some hope - some of us do actually listen. Thanks, again!

Very wise. I wish you the very best of luck in your retake.

yeah, this is pretty awesome. good luck.

[bk1]

the question ends up being... would you trade 3 years of your life in a cold snowy version of hell for a 2x chance at biglaw?

NLJ250 is very NYC-centric, which gives Cornell a bigger edge than it really has. Lots of good CA firms aren't NLJ250 firms. Your odds of getting a firm job are better from Cornell, but not twice as good. I think this is a tossup. With ties to CA, I'd go to Cornell. If no ties, go to UCLA.

Obviously California is a bigger legal market but I get some skepticism from people back in Maryland about going to Michigan and my desire to work in the state.

That same skepticism can exist in CA depending on whether your other ties are looser (e.g. grew up there but went to undergrad out of state and didn't spend 1L summer there), but I think that CA is really on another scale from MD. CA is much much larger and SF/SV/LA/SD are generally desirable places to live whereas not a lot of people tend to say "I dream of living in Baltimore."

[skitlets]

Another reason you should go to law school in the region you want:

Once you settle down, develop a reputation in the legal community, and most importantly develop a book of business, it is hard to pick up and move as a lawyer. Not impossible, but certainly a lot harder than if you work in some non-law job. Lawyers sort of become institutions in a particular location, and they move around less than their non-attorney counterparts.*

Sure, it's not a big deal if you're just some young associate leaving a big firm to relocate. But once you've spent a decent chunk of time in a location (especially in private practice), your primary contacts are going to be in a particular place. Going to law school planning on working somewhere for a few years and thinking you can just pick up and leave is a lot tougher plan than just going to the location you want to wind up in in the first place. You make getting your first job more difficult than it has to be, AND you make getting your second job more difficult than it has to be.



*Note: I am just a 2L so obviously this is not based on my experience, but is based on conversations I've had with attorneys I've spoken to about the issue of relocation. I am just passing on the good word. It's also pretty backed up by just looking at people's bios; most attorneys jump around from job to job, but not many jump from city to city.

Good post and something I'll keep in mind when speaking to a few attorneys I have meetings scheduled with in the coming weeks.

I'm totally stuck on my decision. I'd like to practice in the Bay Area, though I am not opposed to working in whatever market I go to school for and moving back a few years down the line. I have absolutely no desire for Big Law.

I have a few schools to choose from:
UCLA Waitlist
Hastings - ?
UCI - $12k year
WUSTL - $20k year
GW - ?
UW - $5k year
BU - ?

Assuming cost of attendance are all within ~30k total, (except GW, which is astronomical) is Hastings my best bet assuming I do not get into UCLA? WUSTL may be the cheapest by approximately 30k total. The rest should be relatively close.

[coldpixies]

/////////

[MissyJRA177]

[removed]

[rad lulz]

.

[romothesavior]

Ok, this is interesting and I'm wondering if someone can give me thoughts on Vandy.

I'm from central IL and went to UG in IL near the Kentucky border, so I'm currently about 3 hours away from Nashville. My mother and sister recently moved to Southern California. That's pretty much all the family I have in this country.

I'm thinking about going to Vandy (with a scholly) and would be happy to live/practice in the Nashville region. Would I be considered to have ties, since I did UG about 3 hours away and am from rural IL, or is it a "different region"? Is attending Vandy a bad idea? All things considered, employment stats for Vandy grads seems very positive and with national reach, but this thread got me wondering.

Central/Southern Illinois and Nashville are very, very different regions. You will not be considered a native, or considered to have ties. It certainly isn't impossible to get a job in Nashville being a non-native Vandy student (I know a guy...), but it isn't easy either. It will depend on grades, networking, all that good stuff.

The nice thing about Vanderbilt is that while it isn't a truly "national" school, it is quasi-national and very strong regionally. It really isn't one of the schools I had in mind when I started this thread (although obviously it is a better choice for a southerner looking to stay south than a West Coaster looking to get back to Cali). If the price is right, it could be a great option for you.

P.S. Central IL represent!

[MissyJRA177]

Ok, this is interesting and I'm wondering if someone can give me thoughts on Vandy.

I'm from central IL and went to UG in IL near the Kentucky border, so I'm currently about 3 hours away from Nashville. My mother and sister recently moved to Southern California. That's pretty much all the family I have in this country.

I'm thinking about going to Vandy (with a scholly) and would be happy to live/practice in the Nashville region. Would I be considered to have ties, since I did UG about 3 hours away and am from rural IL, or is it a "different region"? Is attending Vandy a bad idea? All things considered, employment stats for Vandy grads seems very positive and with national reach, but this thread got me wondering.

Central/Southern Illinois and Nashville are very, very different regions. You will not be considered a native, or considered to have ties. It certainly isn't impossible to get a job in Nashville being a non-native Vandy student (I know a guy...), but it isn't easy either. It will depend on grades, networking, all that good stuff.

The nice thing about Vanderbilt is that while it isn't a truly "national" school, it is quasi-national and very strong regionally. It really isn't one of the schools I had in mind when I started this thread (although obviously it is a better choice for a southerner looking to stay south than a West Coaster looking to get back to Cali). If the price is right, it could be a great option for you.

P.S. Central IL represent!

Thanks for your reply and I appreciate that you weren't necessarily talking about Vandy when you posted originally. Is it fair to say being local/regional to Nashville would mean being from TN, AR, MS, GA, LA, AL, TX(?), NC, SC, or KY? If this definition for the region is used, not even 50% of the class of 2011 had ties to the area, ~50% reported employment outside of the region after graduation (90% reporting) and indeed, only abut 25% were employed in TN. So I can see that getting a job in Nashville is competitive, or maybe there's fewer people interested in staying? Either way, since about 50% of Vandy grads are not from the region and 50% find employment outside the region, it seems fair to say Vandy is not a heavily "regional" school (Source: 2012 Vandy pamphlet, no direct link sorry).

[rad lulz]

.

[romothesavior]

Thanks for your reply and I appreciate that you weren't necessarily talking about Vandy when you posted originally. Is it fair to say being local/regional to Nashville would mean being from TN, AR, MS, GA, LA, AL, TX(?), NC, SC, or KY? If this definition for the region is used, not even 50% of the class of 2011 had ties to the area, ~50% reported employment outside of the region after graduation (90% reporting) and indeed, only abut 25% were employed in TN. So I can see that getting a job in Nashville is competitive, or maybe there's fewer people interested in staying? Either way, since about 50% of Vandy grads are not from the region and 50% find employment outside the region, it seems fair to say Vandy is not a heavily "regional" school (Source: 2012 Vandy pamphlet, no direct link sorry).

Being local to Nashville (or any other insular secondary city) means being from that city or close to that city. Being from Texas or somewhere else in the south does not make one a Nashville local, if that's what you were trying to say. But yes, you are correct that Vandy is not specifically a "regional" school. It has strong placement throughout the southeast, and can land people in markets like D.C. and NYC, or back to other markets where they came from.

Do keep in mind though, when you see that a lot of people at X School come from another region and then find employment outside of X School's region, this often (maybe usually?) is the result of the person getting a job where they had pre-existing ties. For example, if you went to Vanderbilt and were from say Florida, your best shot of getting an NLJ firm job is probably going to be back in Florida, or in a market that isn't so insular (like NYC, or maaaaybe Atlanta).* Pretty much wherever you go, your best odds of getting a big firm job are going to be 1) the market where your ties are (particularly in the narrow sense of the city you are from, and less likely in the region you are from), 2) a big and not-so-insular market (think NYC, D.C., etc.), and a distant 3) the market where you go to school, but lack pre-existing ties to. Hope that makes some sense.

*Yes, I know there are plenty of anecdotal exceptions to this (and I am actually one of them), but it is a decent general rule.

[FryBreadPower]

Literally two hours after I found this post, 5 or 6 threads are created that are directly counter to this advice.

[zanzbar]

Just double checking but for larger states like Texas its not a loss of ties if you locate to a different part of the state for law school. I did high school and UG in West Texas, and won't be looked as an outsider by firms if I go to SMU or U of H right? I don't think anyone could reasonably expect me to be a flight risk to get back to the dust bowl
. Even if its a loss of ties I guess I could talk about how I love Texas and the last 4 generations of my family have been born in the same hospital about an hour outside of Houston and other reassuring facts.

[romothesavior]

Just double checking but for larger states like Texas its not a loss of ties if you locate to a different part of the state for law school. I did high school and UG in West Texas, and won't be looked as an outsider by firms if I go to SMU or U of H right? I don't think anyone could reasonably expect me to be a flight risk to get back to the dust bowl
. Even if its a loss of ties I guess I could talk about how I love Texas and the last 4 generations of my family have been born in the same hospital about an hour outside of Houston and other reassuring facts.

You'll be fine.

I don't know much about this, but in some states there is even a bit of parochialism with regards to other cities within states. Not sure how Houston/Dallas view each other, just something to consider.